Week 1 Analysis

[ehochstein]

Originally Posted by bduddy

The problem, in my opinion, is that refs are required to both watch a quadrant of the field that may include several robots and operate the scoring screen. If I recall correctly there used to be separate scorekeepers, and it's still listed as a volunteer position in VIMS; I know there isn't an endless supply of volunteers, but if there was ever a game that needed scorekeepers...

There are still scorekeepers this year. I am just unsure whether your definition of scorekeeper is the same as what it is actually defined as.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Wiifi

There are still scorekeepers this year. I am just unsure whether your definition of scorekeeper is the same as what it is actually defined as.

I was referring to volunteers that specifically operated the scoring screens. I thought those used to exist, although it's possible I'm wrong.

[Thad House]

At auburn, I just saw a robot toss the ball to go over the truss. It arc'd, hit the ground, bounced and then went over the truss. It was in the correct direction, but the Head ref still said it didnt count. What rule would cause this, because that doesnt make sense.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by sst.thad

At auburn, I just saw a robot toss the ball to go over the truss. It arc'd, hit the ground, bounced and then went over the truss. It was in the correct direction, but the Head ref still said it didnt count. What rule would cause this, because that doesnt make sense.

I saw that too, and it was one of many incorrect rulings I've seen today.

[eddie12390]

I don't want to call out a specific team, but there are instances such as match 34 at the Auburn Mountainview District Event where a robot blantantly stuck it's arm ~15 inches into the low goal multiple times. It doesn't seem like certain penalties are even being watched for due to the complexity of keeping track of things like assists while watching for other penalties.

Originally Posted by sst.thad

At auburn, I just saw a robot toss the ball to go over the truss. It arc'd, hit the ground, bounced and then went over the truss. It was in the correct direction, but the Head ref still said it didnt count. What rule would cause this, because that doesnt make sense.

I was wondering about that also, is there anything that specifies that a team must throw the ball to score it? What if a team were to decide that they wanted to bounce a ball into the high goal?

[JesseK]

That TRUSS really depended on the interpretation of what "caused" the ball to go over the truss. Seems like the ref used a pretty chicken-and-egg interpretation to me.

A BALL is considered SCORED over the TRUSS if a ROBOT causes a BALL to pass though...

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

I saw that too, and it was one of many incorrect rulings I've seen today.

Yeah I've seen alot of bad rulings today, and it worries me. There is just so much to watch for this year...

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by eddie12390

I don't want to call out a specific team, but there are instances such as match 34 at the Auburn Mountainview District Event where a robot blantantly stuck it's arm ~15 inches into the low goal multiple times. It doesn't seem like certain penalties are even being watched for due to the complexity of keeping track of things like assists while watching for other penalties.

Which low goal did they stick their arm into? Their own low goal, or the opponent's?

[LDiDomenico]

After watching the Alamo Regional and Auburn Mountainview District competitions I noticed a few things.

1. Field reset is so much faster than last year.
2. Sometimes assists aren't being called.
3. A lot of matches are being determined by fouls.
4. Too many teams don't know what to do on the field.

[orangemoore]

I have really noticed that the assists they are scoring are really obvious. Some are not being called at all. I think that this may improve with time through the season but for the teams that are competing now it may be making it a lot harder.

[eddie12390]

Originally Posted by inkling16

Which low goal did they stick their arm into? Their own low goal, or the opponent's?

I apologize, I was under the misconception that it was illegal to put appendages into either low goal.

[pwnageNick]

The balls bouncing out of the goals and some assists not being counted have to be the 2 biggest things out there so far. I have especially noticed that the assists that are left out most often are the third one of a cycle, at least it seemed to be the most prevalent.

I think it is true that a lot of teams look like they don't know what to do out there, but I think it already started to get much better by the end of the day. Keep in mind even for teams that practiced a ton before competition, they probably were not able to practice with 5 other robots running around the field getting in the way. This will take some time, like it does with every other game. I t is just more noticeable this year because there is only one game object. By the end of the day a lot of teams were really starting to learn how to trade off between dealing with the ball and playing defense effectively.

Also, while robot catching has not been prevalent due to the middle of the field often having complete chaos all over the place, throwing over the truss to the human player has been an extremely popular strategy and has been pretty effective in a lot of matches.

I think tomorrow will really give us a better idea of how this game can be played now that teams have gotten accustomed to the dynamic. We can't be too quick to judge about everything so quickly.

-Nick

[mwmac]

G26-1
ROBOTS may not break the planes of the openings of the opponent’s LOW GOALS.

Violation: FOUL. If extended, strategic, or repeated, TECHNICAL FOUL.

[XaulZan11]

At Central Illinois, the refs are not calling G3 when teams lose their bumpers. Considering it should be a foul and disabling the robot, this is a pretty big deal.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

At Central Illinois, the refs are not calling G3 when teams lose their bumpers. Considering it should be a foul and disabling the robot, this is a pretty big deal.

Robot parts left on the field seems to be called rather inconsistently. Sometimes it's a 20 point foul. Sometimes it's a 50 point technical foul. Seems REALLY harsh for such a violent game.